Delhi HC Grants Bail to 3 Multi-Crore Scam Accused, Holds Prolonged Trial Delay Overrides Rigours of Section 45 of PMLA [Read Prder]

The Delhi High Court,has granted bail to three accused in a multi-crore money laundering and cyber fraud scam, holding that huge incarceration and delay in trial override the stringent twin conditions prescribed under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).

The court said that “From the foregoing, it is evident that despite the stringent requirements imposed on the accused under Section 45 of PMLA for the grant of bail, it has been established that these requirements do not preclude the grant of bail on the grounds of undue delay in the completion of the trial. Various courts have recognized that prolonged incarceration undermines the right to life and liberty, as has been guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and therefore, conditional liberty must take precedence over the statutory restrictions under Section 45 of PMLA and override the bar therein.”

The fact is that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) registered an ECIR based on two CBI cases alleging large-scale cyber fraud through fake job offers, bogus investment schemes, and mule accounts.

The investigation revealed 937 bank accounts, of which 12 were allegedly controlled by the accused along with others, forming part of the so-called Bijwasan Group. Funds collected from victims were rotated through these accounts, layered, and transferred overseas, including onto Dubai-based Pyypl Wallet for cryptocurrency purchases.

According to ED, the accused duped citizens to the tune of ₹641 crores. Vipin and Ajay were alleged to have laundered approximately ₹21 crores through multiple shell entities and mule accounts, while Rakesh Karwa was accused of arranging 186 mule accounts and transferring ₹170.31 crores, including crypto transactions worth ₹32 crores. All three were arrested between November 2024 and January 2025 and have since been in custody.

Comprehensive Guide of Law and Procedure for Filing of Income Tax Appeals, Click Here

The applicants’ counsel, Mr. Manu Sharma, Senior Advocate argued that they were not named in the predicate FIRs and had no role in generating the alleged proceeds of crime. They stressed that the principal accused, Rohit Aggarwal, who allegedly received and redistributed over ₹50 crores was never arrested despite his graver involvement, reflecting selective prosecution and entitling them to bail on grounds of parity.

It was further submitted that the applicants had already spent 9-10 months in custody, while the trial had not even commenced given the pendency of over 1000 documents and more than 100 witnesses.

Their cryptocurrency dealings, counsel asserted, were legal and compliant with Indian law. Prolonged incarceration without trial, they contended, amounted to a violation of their fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution.

On the contrary, the Enforcement Directorate opposed the bail pleas, stating that the alleged scam amounted to ₹641 crores with a transnational footprint, necessitating strict application of Section 45 of the PMLA.

It was contended that the applicants were non-cooperative, had concealed records, and obstructed the investigation, in contrast to Rohit Aggarwal who voluntarily disclosed key details.

Justice Amit Mahajan, observed that while Section 45 of the PMLA prescribes stringent twin conditions for bail, constitutional courts have repeatedly held that prolonged incarceration and inordinate trial delays override such statutory restrictions.

Comprehensive Guide of Law and Procedure for Filing of Income Tax Appeals, Click Here

The Court noted that the applicants had already spent nearly a year in custody, with the trial yet to commence and unlikely to conclude soon given the voluminous documents and large number of witnesses.

It further found that the selective non-arrest of the alleged mastermind, Rohit Aggarwal, and other individuals despite their more serious roles reflected arbitrariness, justifying bail on grounds of parity.

The court said that the maximum sentence under PMLA is seven years, the Court held that indefinite pre-trial detention would offend the constitutional guarantee of liberty under Article 21. Accordingly bail was granted with strict conditions.

Mr. Manu Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Abhir Datt, Mr. Arjun Kakkar, Mr. Vijay Singh, Mr. Debayan Gangopadhyay and Mr. Suryaketu Tomar, Advocates appeared for the petitioners.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates